American Homeland Title Agency v. Stephen Robertson, 930 F.3d 806

American Homeland Title Agency (Ohio-based) was audited by Indiana Dept. of Insurance and admitted to hundreds of regulatory violations; examiners recommended fines and consumer reimbursements and sought revocation of two owners’ Indiana licenses.
Negotiations led to an Agreed Entry: American Homeland paid penalties, owners relinquished licenses, and expressly waived the right to judicial review.
After complying, American Homeland sued Commissioner Robertson claiming Equal Protection violations (alleging the Department penalized out-of-state firms more harshly); Commerce Clause claim was foreclosed by McCarran-Ferguson.
Plaintiff’s evidence: statistical expert (Dr. Voss) showing more guideline deviations against out-of-state firms, a recorded examiner remark suggesting in-state preference, and deposition testimony where Robertson could not categorically deny departmental bias.
District court excluded the expert under Daubert and granted summary judgment for Robertson, finding remaining evidence insufficient; American Homeland appealed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Agreed Entry precludes judicial review	Agreed Entry was signed under coercion/duress and reflects unconstitutional bias, so it should be voided	Agreed Entry is a valid, voluntary settlement and includes a clear waiver of judicial review	The waiver is enforceable under Indiana contract law; the Agreed Entry bars judicial review
Whether duress voids the settlement	Threat of facing up to $9.5M if administrative review pursued rendered the agreement involuntary	Advising of potential maximum penalty is lawful negotiation, not duress	Not duress under Indiana law; fear of greater civil liability does not invalidate the agreement
Whether alleged unconstitutional bias renders the agreement illegal/void	Bias produced unlawful terms; Equal Protection claim should allow courts to review and unwind the settlement	Contract-illegality doctrine doesn’t apply; waiver of judicial review is not itself unlawful	Alleged bias does not make the contract illegal; plaintiff may not use equal-protection claim to escape the waiver
Standing / redressability	Plaintiff maintains injury and that court remedies (damages, reinstatement) would redress harms	Defendant argued claims are unredressable due to settlement waiver	Plaintiff has Article III standing, but waiver/contract defense (an affirmative defense) forecloses relief; court need not reach merits

Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Ward, 470 U.S. 869 (Equal Protection applies to state regulation of insurance despite McCarran-Ferguson)
Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (standing elements and Article III jurisdiction)
United States v. ITT Cont'l Baking Co., 420 U.S. 223 (consent decrees construed as contracts for enforcement)
Pohl v. United Airlines, Inc., 213 F.3d 336 (settlement enforceability governed by local contract law)
Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
United States v. Jones, 381 F.3d 615 (waiver of appellate/claims rights in plea agreements enforced when knowing and voluntary)
Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co. v. Rose, 868 F.3d 558 (release/settlement as an affirmative defense that may be waived)